Trading up for a player is far different than passing on a player because you bank on a player being available the next time you pick.

No, the same exact logic is being employed. In both situations, the teams are evaluating the likelihood that a prospect would be available at a certain pick, based on the perceived value of the player, and are acting upon this evaluation, something you've argued that teams simply don't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by princefielder28

And to clarify for the third time, I am not trying to make the argument that Scott will be the first quarterback taken; just trying to generate discussion on the possibility that he may be taken higher than most think.

Sure you aren't;

Quote:

Originally Posted by princefielder28

is it possible that we see a trade up in the late part of round one and see Matt Scott as the first quarterback off the board?

No, the same exact logic is being employed. In both situations, the teams are evaluating the likelihood that a prospect would be available at a certain pick, based on the perceived value of the player, and are acting upon this evaluation, something you've argued that teams simply don't do.

Sure you aren't;

I have not stated once in this thread that Matt Scott SHOULD/WILL be the first QB taken.

I have not stated once in this thread that Matt Scott SHOULD/WILL be the first QB taken.

You created an entire thread and a very long first post to propose the question. That clearly indicates you readily believe in the legitimacy of such a scenario unfolding, which is absurd enough. Quite frankly, if you didn't readily believe that it was very possible for Matt Scott to be the first quarterback taken, you wouldn't have proposed the question nor made the thread.

You created an entire thread and a very long first post to propose the question. That clearly indicates you readily believe in the legitimacy of such a scenario unfolding, which is absurd enough. Quite frankly, if you didn't readily believe that it was very possible for Matt Scott to be the first quarterback taken, you wouldn't have proposed the question nor made the thread.

I don't think it's something that's likely, but it could be a possibility and to be honest I'm tired of the talking in circles that goes on with the Chiefs and the first pick.

I'm not sure what argument is worse; that Matt Scott would be the first quarterback taken, or that NFL teams don't consider other team's evaluations when deciding on whether or not to take a player with the x pick.

Here's a simple question prince, why do teams trade up?

Its not that hard a situation to consider. Its draft day you have your horizontal board in place and see you have a need at the FS position. Well you look and see there is only one top tier FS left on the board and 5 picks left. Well Detroit needs a Free Safety and they could take our guy so we have to choose either to trade up or take a chance that they don't evaluate that player the same way we do. Well it is one of our few needs so lets call and see what they want for the pick. I think it is much rarer to have the GM and co sit around and say I don't think Detroit likes him as much as we do unless there is a considerable scheme mismatch.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

Its not that hard a situation to consider. Its draft day you have your horizontal board in place and see you have a need at the FS position. Well you look and see there is only one top tier FS left on the board and 5 picks left. Well Detroit needs a Free Safety and they could take our guy so we have to choose either to trade up or take a chance that they don't evaluate that player the same way we do. Well it is one of our few needs so lets call and see what they want for the pick. I think it is much rarer to have the GM and co sit around and say I don't think Detroit likes him as much as we do unless there is a considerable scheme mismatch.

I can't tell if you're trying to disagree with me, because that's my point, teams at least try to be very perceptive of where a player might get picked and act accordingly. They don't simply blindly look at the big board.

I can't tell if you're trying to disagree with me, because that's my point, teams at least try to be very perceptive of where a player might get picked and act accordingly. They don't simply blindly look at the big board.

My point is they have no idea what any other team's draft board looks like in general so they are not going to wait on a guy if it is the top guy on their board just because they think no other team is going to take him. No team sits there and says "Hey Matt Scott is the top player on our board we really like him and I think we need a player at that position but **** it we are going to wait a whole round because I don't think people like him as much as we do."

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

My point is they have no idea what any other team's draft board looks like in general so they are not going to wait on a guy if it is the top guy on their board just because they think no other team is going to take him. No team sits there and says "Hey Matt Scott is the top player on our board we really like him and I think we need a player at that position but **** it we are going to wait a whole round because I don't think people like him as much as we do."

Yes they do have an idea. Team's scouting departments don't exist in bubbles, they are completely aware of the rest of the community. They don't possess textbook copies of every single team's big board, and thus there will always be surprises, but teams certainly have a rough idea of the routes other teams will explore on draft day, and they have a rough idea of where a prospect will likely be selected. That's the entire reasoning behind moving up on draft day, a team has considered what other teams may do and how they made grade a certain prospect, and thus they feel the need to act in order to make sure they get a prospect. There's no GM worth his salary who sits there blindly picking players with no idea of how they are valued throughout the league.

Real question is how in the world are the Cardinals and Jets not going to pick a quarterback? Sure could get a veteran quarterback but if not....

Everyone rips on Matt Barkley but think of what he could do with the Arizona receivers? And if they got him in the 2nd round that would be a flat out steal but I would be surprised if he dropped that far.

As for this Matt Scott stuff, Nick Foles was a hell of a lot better than him and he was a 3rd round pick. Matt Scott had great stats but so what, against the best defense he played all season that has the most NFL talent on it, UCLA, he had his worst game. Not a huge deal but shows a little something.

GMs absolutely DO gamble with their big boards in order to hoard value.

Several examples have been given but this one always shocked me...

Trent Baalke had a 1st round grade on NaVorro Bowman. He didn't draft him in the 1st round. He didn't draft him in the 2nd round, even though he considered it. Third round was the limit and he knew it, yet he gambled and even traded down 12 spots (accumulating extra picks) and still got his man.

That may be the truth of it. Some do and some don't. To be honest I've never read any book based on the draft or any article (not saying they don't exist) saying that they passed on the top guy on their board due to the fact they thought they could gamble and see him drop an entire round unless of course there were several other guys at the position who they had nearly the same grade on.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

Real question is how in the world are the Cardinals and Jets not going to pick a quarterback? Sure could get a veteran quarterback but if not....

Everyone rips on Matt Barkley but think of what he could do with the Arizona receivers? And if they got him in the 2nd round that would be a flat out steal but I would be surprised if he dropped that far.

As for this Matt Scott stuff, Nick Foles was a hell of a lot better than him and he was a 3rd round pick. Matt Scott had great stats but so what, against the best defense he played all season that has the most NFL talent on it, UCLA, he had his worst game. Not a huge deal but shows a little something.

Who on Arizona's roster outside of Fitz is going to make Matt Barkley look good?

With no run game, questionable pass pro, and a questionable defense -- Barkley is worthless.

Surrounding talent has always made Barkley look better, not the other way around. Fitzgerald is good, but on his own he isn't enough to make Matr Barkley look good.

Aside from being talent deficient, they're going to be running a vertical offense. Barkley would be in a scheme that goes against his perceived strengths.

GMs absolutely DO gamble with their big boards in order to hoard value.

Several examples have been given but this one always shocked me...

Trent Baalke had a 1st round grade on NaVorro Bowman. He didn't draft him in the 1st round. He didn't draft him in the 2nd round, even though he considered it. Third round was the limit and he knew it, yet he gambled and even traded down 12 spots (accumulating extra picks) and still got his man.

True.

No one would even think about Scott until the first couple QB's are gone. If you are the Eagles and think he's a schematic fit, you wait for Geno, Manuel, and however else is a consensus top pick before you consider moving up for Scott.

You don't take him well before you need to just because he's still on the board in the late 1st. Of course he's still available. He'll still be available late into the 2nd.. You START considering Matt Scott around the end of the 3rd when it's questionable about what QB's are still ahead of him.

I can answer this thread simply: No, under no circumstances, will Matt Scott be the first QB off the board. None.

With no run game, questionable pass pro, and a questionable defense -- Barkley is worthless.

Surrounding talent has always made Barkley look better, not the other way around. Fitzgerald is good, but on his own he isn't enough to make Matr Barkley look good.

Aside from being talent deficient, they're going to be running a vertical offense. Barkley would be in a scheme that goes against his perceived strengths.

Really? So you do not think Andre Roberts, Michael Floyd and to a lesser extent Early Doucet and Todd Heap are not good players? Heap past his prime I know but Floyd has tons of potential as a pass catcher, it is in no way just Larry Fitzgerald over there in terms of pass catcher talent.

Yes the offensive line needs help as do other things but they really set on Kolb as the quarterback? If so no issue, but he is kind of questionable to me.

As for the players around Barkley, they are good especially with regards to Woods and Lee, but looking back he did not have all that much talent around him. Productive players but outside of USC not a ton of them have been successful pass catchers. Like I said before Lee and Woods would be the exception to that.

Really? So you do not think Andre Roberts, Michael Floyd and to a lesser extent Early Doucet and Todd Heap are not good players? Heap past his prime I know but Floyd has tons of potential as a pass catcher, it is in no way just Larry Fitzgerald over there in terms of pass catcher talent.

Yes the offensive line needs help as do other things but they really set on Kolb as the quarterback? If so no issue, but he is kind of questionable to me.

As for the players around Barkley, they are good especially with regards to Woods and Lee, but looking back he did not have all that much talent around him. Productive players but outside of USC not a ton of them have been successful pass catchers. Like I said before Lee and Woods would be the exception to that.

First, no I don't think Andre Roberts and Michael Floyd are good players at this point. Roberts is ok and Floyd has potential, but they're not going to make a QB look better than he is or make his life any easier.

And no, Early Doucet and Todd Heap are not good players. Doucet is a replaceable #3 and Heap is a grandpa.

As for Barkley not having talent around him, you must be joking. He had Matt Kahlil protecting his blindside until his senior season and Tyron Smith as the other bookend until his junior season.

The running backs aren't going to be anything special in the NFL but Marc Tyler, Silas Redd, Curtis McNeal, Stanley Havili etc. were all good college talents.

He's always had good TE's and he was running an offense where over 50% of his throws were 5 yards or less.

Lee & Woods are pretty big exceptions to not having any pass catching talent. Outside of Geno, which of these other QB's had talent at WR? Who did Andrew Luck have at Stanford? Matt Ryan at BC? Those guys would have killed to get Woods and Lee.

Anyway, Barkley just isn't an upgrade over Kolb. In fact, Kolb might be even better because at least he has some mobility.

Barkley has a similar arm, no mobility, poor deep ball accuracy and contrary to popular rhetoric -- he's not a good decision maker.

If you're a Cards fan, this is not the QB to pull you out of a hole. SF & Sea will eat him alive.

It’s been widely discussed about which quarterback tops teams’ boards, and for the most part results come back with Geno Smith being the popular choice. In connection with that, there’s usually the comment that he’s a borderline first talent and not worthy of a high, top 10 selection.

Matt Barkley has received criticism throughout the year with his performance, and his saving grace might be the intangibles he brings along with very good junior tape. Still the majority viewpoint seems to be that he doesn’t possess the physical skills to warrant a first round selection.

EJ Manuel, Ryan Nassib and Landry Jones are all quarterbacks who had their high points throughout their lengthy starting careers in college, and they’ve continued the ups and downs during the off-season evaluation cycle.

Mike Glennon and Tyler Bray have starting experience, not as much as Manuel, Nassib or Jones, but they can share in the ups and downs, and when it comes to their evaluations the common theme is “live arm” which translates to a strong arm but erratic and inconsistent to say the least. All five have tools to work with but can a team justify spending a first round pick on them? Probably not.

So if we come to draft night and get through the top 10 without any quarterbacks being selected (Oakland, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Buffalo and New York all passing on the massive reach of taking a quarterback), is it possible that we see a trade up in the late part of round one and see Matt Scott as the first quarterback off the board?

Philadelphia has often been connected to EJ Manuel as their second round target, but Matt Scott possesses the best combination of athleticism and arm strength of any of the quarterbacks in this draft and he fits the Kelly offense better than anyone as well. Scott doesn’t have the starting experience of other signal callers, but that lends itself to the possibility that he has more potential than any quarterback available and if Philadelphia is the fit, he’d have the chance to develop for a season instead of being thrown into the fire immediately.